Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shotwell

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC).

USERNAME (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. User:Shotwell is editing the article Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy when there is a dispute regarding the content. He has filed a request for comment, which is fine...but now he is making changes in the article that no one but he wants. This is not conducive to dispute resolution or in accord with Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. The dipsute is that he is not satisfied with the verifiable sources provided for statements in the article that the treatment is evidence based (there are several studies cited in professional peer-reviewed publications stating that the approach is evidence-based. These are empirical studies.

In addition, he has now begun to label everyone involved as a sockpuppet in apparent retaliation for a question being rasised about his relationship with user Sarner.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} User:Shotwell is editing the article Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy when there is a dispute regarding the content. He has filed a request for comment, which is fine...but now he is making changes in the article that no one but he wants. This is not conducive to dispute resolution or in accord with Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. The dipsute is that he is not satisfied with the verifiable sources provided for statements in the article that the treatment is evidence based (there are several studies cited in professional peer-reviewed publications stating that the approach is evidence-based. These are empirical studies.

In addition, he vandalized several pages when he accused several editors of being "sockpuppets," in retailiation for a question being raised about his relationship with Sarner, another disputant in this issue and on several other pages together with Shotwell Candace Newmaker, Advocates for Children in Therapy, Bowlby. Another user's status as a sockpuppet for Sarner was raised by the mediator in this case. ...User:Shotwell appears to be abusing Wikipedia policy and has filed a vindictive request regarding sockpuppet because a question was raised regading his relationship with User:Sarner in these disputes. The mediator found his filing the charge provocative and inappropriate: See link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy#Discussion RalphLender^talk 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions may be construed as vandalism. At the least they are an act of bad faith. The Mediator involved in the case has labeled your act as unacceptable. "That was COMPLETELY unjustified. I think this shows that you will do almost anything to keep the article from the majority of editors. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-07_Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy[reply]

DPeterson^talk 01:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

verifiable
Dispute resolution processes
Assume good faith

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. on the talk page for Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy shotwell has requested comments. However he is making edits that do not represent agreement among differing editors. This only creates discord and further disputes. It has been suggested that the dispute about this article and Bowlby and Advocates for Children in Therapy be mergeed since they are all related.